Missing Link?

[Not-son-of-fish]

How do evolutionists account for the lack of living transitional lifeforms? There should be hundreds right outside my window right?

Thanks

[DivineOb]

I suppose it depends on how you define 'transitional form'. So, how do you define it?

[Minnesota]

I believe most evolutionists would posit that YOU are most likely a transitional form. Can't be proven of course, but considering the vast amount of evidence showing that all current life forms are the result of evolution, there is no reason to think that Homo sapiens have reached a dead end---other than the possibility that they may obliterate themselves through their own carelessness.

[Woman]

fish:

How do evolutionists account for the lack of living transitional lifeforms? There should be hundreds right outside my window right?

Thanks

How do you know there aren't? Would you know a transitional lifeform if it bit you?

[Dr.GH]

The closer to the Cambrian, the easier it is to point to tansitionals.

The notion of equivalency means that the same point doesn't need to be proven over and over and over. Once a general princple is demonstrated, we can move on to the next important issue.

If you agree, we can proceed.

[djnoz]

How do evolutionists account for the lack of living transitional lifeforms? There should be hundreds right outside my window right?

Natural selection is part of the evolution process. Those transitional species have probably all become extinct, because they were unsuited to their environment.....

Of course, if your a Nazi, there are plenty of transitional life forms out there....

[DunnySaze]

How do evolutionists account for the lack of living transitional lifeforms? There should be hundreds right outside my window right?

Thanks

There is no lack of living transitional forms. In fact, ALL living organisms are transitional forms. Transitional between what existed in the past, and whatever will exist in the future. Assuming of course something radical doesn't happen the near future like the extinction of all life.

We can't say what those future forms will be. For example, consider the seal. This animal cannot be described as fully terrestrial, nor can be described as fully aquatic. It's a mix of both. In the future, will seals become entirely aquatic, entirely terrestrial, or have some other destiny? There's no way to tell, since there appears to be no 'direction' to evolution.

Now if your definition of 'transtional lifeform' differs considerably from what evolutionists mean by that term, then that's a whole different matter.

[WinAce]

There are always bizarre animals like the Walking Catfish if digging up fossils isn't your preferred hobby...

[Not-son-of-fish]

Today @ 04:37 AM post located here
DivineOb:

I suppose it depends on how you define 'transitional form'. So, how do you define it?

The kind of transitional form I am referring to here would be a visible transition between living species. (i.e. A fish with legs, a horse with wings, or something similar) I am referring to a living lifeform not a fossill.

[Socratism]

This thread will go nowhere as long as the common definition of transition is used by one set of posters and the evolutionary meaning of it is used by others.

All it means to many is that there are some forms that have characteristics of more than one classification grouping, where the groupings were originally established because some characteristics seemed to belong almost exclusively to that grouping.

To others the term refers to a "lineage", that is a continuous line of descent that supposedly branched off slowly over time to create separate lineages that at some point could be recognized as different by their differing characteristics.

Thus there are dilemmas, one if a particular characteristic can not be distinguished as binary (it is either there or it isn't), and another if consideration of multiple charactistics simultaneously does not show consistency, i.e. one characteristic shows a trend in one direction but a different characteristic shows a trend in another. In this latter case there is no identifiable ancestor and specimens are thought to be only cousins (speaking loosely).

In fact, many if not most (or all) citings of transitional forms in the literature are of this latter type.

[DunnySaze]

This thread will go nowhere as long as the common definition of transition is used by one set of posters and the evolutionary meaning of it is used by others.

Couldn't agree more.

In this latter case there is no identifiable ancestor and specimens are thought to be only cousins (speaking loosely).

In fact, many if not most (or all) citings of transitional forms in the literature are of this latter type.

Again, I think you hit it right on the head. Archeaopteryx for example is considered transitional between dinosaurs and birds because it has features attributed to, and diagnosic of, both groups. It is however not considered a direct ancestor to birds, but rather a closely related offshoot of whatever the actual ancestor was. To determine true ancestory you'll need genetic data that doesn't get recorded in the fossil record.

In fact, recent evidence suggests that rather than thinking of modern birds as a separate group in themselves, it may be more accurate to consider them the last surviving branch of the dinosaur group. Depends where you want to draw the line. That's the problem with a continuum of species, the line is obscure sometimes. New evidence leads to re-evaluation.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 03:03 PM post located here
Not-son-of-fish:



The kind of transitional form I am referring to here would be a visible transition between living species. (i.e. A fish with legs, a horse with wings, or something similar) I am referring to a living lifeform not a fossill.

Fish with legs: Mudskippers.Their pectoral fins, short and stout, are used more as legs than fins. they spend a lot of tine ashore. This can also be found in some angler fish and sea robins, that spend no time ashore, but crawl or hop along the sae bottom.

Don't know of any flying or gliding horses, but how 'bout flying squirrels and sugar gliders? What might evolution be doing with these?

Hmm. Blind cave fish. These, no longer needing eyes, are in the process of losing them.

There's a species of rattlesnake, one of the viridis complex, that commonly preys upon a species of ground squirrel, in the south west. The squirrel is in the precess of becoming partially resistant to the snake's venom and the snake must get a pretty good hit to kill one. At the same time, the snake's venom is becoming 'hotter'. A great example of two animals evolving together, as this has been going on for milinia, with no end in sight.

This is just fast and dirty, off the top of my head. If I weren't so lazy, I'd hit the books and make a longer list, but, I'm sure you can see what I mean. They're all around us.

Edited to add that none or all of these creatures might be 'transitional'. It is not possible to predict the future of a species. One can only observe the evidence of the past.

doov

[Socratism]

If you want to consider adaptation to be "evolution by random mutations plus natural selection" that is your choice, but adaptation seems to occur a bit faster than that.

It is not possible to predict the future of a species. One can only observe the evidence of the past.

Which might be taken to say that evolution is not a theory that can predict the future but only a subjective explanation of the past.

Isn't there a saying that "Hindsight is 20-20"?

[DunnySaze]

If you want to consider adaptation to be "evolution by random mutations plus natural selection" that is your choice, but adaptation seems to occur a bit faster than that.

There is no rate inherent in the definition you give: "evolution by random mutations plus natural selection". What makes you think the process described this way is 'slow'?

Which might be taken to say that evolution is not a theory that can predict the future but only a subjective explanation of the past.

One might take it that way, but that would be a misunderstanding. Prediction in science is not about predicting the future, it's about predicting that something will be observed (like the result from an experiment) or predicting the sorts of things you might see if your theory were correct; as well as the sorts of things you would not expect to see.

For example, evolutionary theory predicts that similarity between organisms will show the same relationships and in the same degree; to a high statistical probability; in molecular and in anatomical details. Special creation makes no such prediction. The observations support the evolutionary view.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 04:58 PM post located here
Socratism:

If you want to consider adaptation to be "evolution by random mutations plus natural selection" that is your choice, but adaptation seems to occur a bit faster than that.



Which might be taken to say that evolution is not a theory that can predict the future but only a subjective explanation of the past.

Isn't there a saying that "Hindsight is 20-20"?

Hind sight is indeed 20/20, which is why we've come to understand a lot about transitionals species.

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

I've worded some of my statement poorly. I should have said that it is impossible to predict the future of a modern species, such as the mudskippers, that you can readly observe alive, in the field.

Why? Very simple. They might get a new predator, as the 'skippers have. The tropical fish trade is proceeding to decimate them, and when ashore, they're not hard to catch. To my knowledge, there is yet no captive, breeding program for them, as there is for a great many, other species. And, wild-caught are always cheaper on the market.

So, what does this mean for the mudskippers? Will their populations become so thin that extinction is right around the corner? Or will they, through natural selection, become harder to catch? They concievably could even return to wholly aquatic life.

I don't know, although adding destruction of habitat to the first option, I'd tend to think that that's what's going to happen. As it will with many, modern species, ultimatly including ourselves.

Doov